The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged as to the injury by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to the injury by robbery), the fact that the Defendant had the victim go in excess of the victim’s shoulder is inconsistent with the facts charged. However, there is no “the fact that the Defendant led the victim to a volume of 1m and led the victim to a resistance” and only the victim was in the course of larceny.

Therefore, although this part should be viewed as concurrent crimes of larceny and bodily injury, the court below convicted of bodily injury resulting from robbery. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there is a case where a theft of property by force, such as the so-called “day-to-day”, would be damaged or injured by the victim. In the event that such result has become easible in the course of the deprivation of possession without the victim’s resistance suppression purpose, it is not a robbery but a larceny.

However, if the exercise of force is to be to suppress or imprison the other party's resistance objectively from social norms, it constitutes an assault against robbery.

Therefore, the act of continuously towing the victim and taking the property from the detention place despite the victim's resistance against the other party's act of taking advantage of the fact in the course of the possession and the escape of the property in the course of the possession and the escape of the property, constitutes robbery, because it forcibly takes the property after suppressing the victim's resistance.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7601, Dec. 13, 2007). Furthermore, an injury in the crime of bodily injury resulting from robbery is sufficient if it was caused by an act of the offender in an opportunity for robbery.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do2397, Jan. 15, 1985).